1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured What is "good" in God's sight?

Discussion in 'Calvinism & Arminianism Debate' started by The Biblicist, Feb 5, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 5 of 9
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    This exactly what I am saying. One must first be "created" in Christ Jesus, which is the impartation of righteousness by a creative act of God BEFORE they can DESIRE or DO works of righteousness. Lost people do not righteously pursue righteousness because they have NO HEART for righteousness and their pursuit is for SELF-JUSTIFICATION which is disobedience to God's Word.

    The pursuit of righteousness by works is not a God given desire but is disobedience to God and a clear rejection of Jesus Christ and thus a sinful desire and act. So Paul is not approving that desire or pursuit but merely declaring that is what they are doing and condemning it.


    That is precisely what Paul is teaching in Ephesians 2:10. No lost person pursues righteousness ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL but in defiance of His revealed will as a matter of SELF-JUSTIFICATION. Only the person FIRST created in Christ Jesus "UNTO" good works has the proper motive and desire to pursue the righteousness of God ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL.
     
    #81 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    The translation you have chosen is not consistent with the Hebrew Text. The very same word translated "restore" is the same word translated "return." Thus the KJV presents a more consistent translation "turn me and I shall be turned."

    Second, initial repentance begins a life long practice of repentance and so the priniciples found in initial repentance characterize the continuance of repentance. Just as, "for it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure" characterizes initial salvation it characteries the continuing work of salvation in the life of the believer.

    Third, this is a child of God under discipline as you assessed who already has the new nature with the desire to please God but this is the confession of INABILITY to turn unless God does the turning.

    Fourth, you rightly have stated that the desire to be turned preceded turning by the chastened person, so also, in initial salvation God first creates the desire (new heart) which LOGICALLY precedes the act of turning.

    Thus the DESIRE is created (new heart) and does not originate from the fallen nature but from the new heart which LOGICALLY precedes conversion. The child of God in the continuing process of repentance after initial repentance acknowledges TOTAL INABILITY to turn apart from God first initiating it.
     
    #82 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2014
  3. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    No, its not consistent with your systematic view of scripture:

    ESV: "...bring me back that I may be restored, for you are the LORD my God..."

    Holman: "Restore me, and I will return, for you, Lord, are my God."

    NAS: "Bring me back that I may be restored, For You are the LORD my God"

    NIV: "Restore me, and I will return, because you are the LORD my God."

    NRS: "Bring me back, let me come back, for you are the Lord my God."

    NKJV: "Restore me, and I will return, For You are the Lord my God."

    And the list goes on and on...I'll let you take it up with the hundreds of linguistic scholars who differ with your perspective...
     
    #83 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  4. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    So you start by inferring Piper doesn't represent your view (i.e 'you think Piper is the standard for all Calvinists...CAlvinist differ on many things'), then change to defending your position as being in perfect alignment with Piper, then blame me for not understanding Piper. So, which is it?

    Piper taught one is first imputed with righteousness and upon that foundation they are imparted with gifts and fruits of righteousness. You argued that impartation was FIRST and by it men have faith, then are imputed with Christ's righteousness.

    Which is it? I agree that Calvinists disagree with each other, but you seem to be disagreeing and agreeing with him at the same time.
     
    #84 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  5. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, do you believe that our broken humiliation, by which we cry out to God to rescue us, trusting only in Him because we have no other hope, is a 'meritorious work of righteousness?'

    Could it be that our broken humiliation is just that and nothing more, and God graciously CHOOSES (only because of his goodness) to credit righteousness to those who humble themselves and ask for it? Does asking for forgiveness have to merit being forgiven in your mind? Does God owe forgiveness to those who humbly ask for it? Do you really believe that humiliation earns God's favor because humility somehow carries a value of sorts in and of itself? OR could it be that the value is God's grace because HE CHOSE to grace the humble. Could it just be that God give grace to the humble because HE IS GOOD, not because of the 'goodness' of humiliation and brokenness in us???? Could that be?
     
    #85 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    ASV: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned;"

    AV: "turn you me, and I shall be turned;"

    Darby: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned;"

    Calvin's Bible: "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned,"

    Douray: "Convert me, and I shall be converted,"

    JB: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned;"

    Leeser: "Cause me to return, and I will return;

    Webster: "turn thou me, and I shall be turned;"

    Young's: "Turn me back, and I turn back,"

    And the list goes on.........! So don't give me that line of logic that all scholars agree with your choice of translation.

    Moreover, anyone can look at the Hebrew text and see it is the EXACT SAME WORD translated "turn" that is translated "turned." The first is found in the imperative mode while the second is imperfect in tense. So there is no excuse to translate them by different words unless a theological bias is in play?????
     
    #86 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 7, 2014
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    First, Calvinists do not agree on every point.

    Second, Piper's quote does not agree with your use of it.

    Third, You know very well that Piper and every other Calvinist teach that regenerative righteousness (new heart) proceeds both imputed righteousness and gifts and fruits of the Spirit so play this silly game.

    Will you claim that Piper denies that conversion is the fruit of regeneration?????
     
    #87 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
  8. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    You don't find it a bit contradictory that the agent making this request is willing to make the request given that God has yet to 'turn him?'

    :applause:
     
    #88 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  9. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You can't be serious??? Do you understand that little of the Calvinistic position to ask such a question??? We believe that "repentance" is inseparable from "faith" and both are fruits of regeneration and you know that. So obviously, we do not believe that repentance is a "meritorious work of righteousness."
     
    #89 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I know, I know, God has to impart on him a willingness to turn for him to ask for God to turn him so that God will impute an irresistible turning after he asks for the turning that God made him want to ask for...

    Again, do you guys have a decoder ring of some kind? :smilewinkgrin:
     
    #90 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  11. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok, allow me to reword that...are you under the impression that repentance done as a free responsible act (as in our system) somehow merits or earns forgiveness and eternal life? If so, why? On what basis do you draw that conclusion?
     
    #91 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Follow your own interpretation! He is speaking as a saved man not a lost man. Hence, he already has the new heart that desires what God desires but he does not have THE ABILITY and this is admission of TOTAL INABILITY to turn himself. If a saved man is TOTALLY UNABLE to turn himself, then how much more a unregenerated man????

    Second, in the initial act of salvation the desire comes first because it is CREATED by God (new heart) = created righteous heart = as "desire" is a "heart" attribute. Thus "with the heart" (new heart) man beleiveth by CALLING UPON the name of the Lord and is justified = imputed righteousness.
     
    #92 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Since your system is not Biblical but antibiblical in regard to salvation, then that kind of repentance would be Biblically termed "worldly sorrow" and is of the flesh - 2 Cor. 7:10
     
    #93 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
  14. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Clearly. In fact, I'd argue that many of them disagree on many key points of the dogma.

    I never said otherwise. I was just pointing out why rebuking me for not understanding 'Calvinism's' wide range of perspectives and nuances is not unique to me, as even you would be at odds with some within your own camp.

    Not the point. The point was to rebut your rebuke of me for not understanding something that even Calvinists differ on.

    In other words, drop the condescension and I won't be forced to point out these nuances within your convoluted worldview.
     
    #94 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    If you are going to presume our system then presume IT, and not the straw-man. We believe humility and repentance is exactly what scripture says it is even if is an actual free response of man...so you still haven't answered the question. You've only straw-manned us..
     
    #95 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  16. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Just like Armnians even are more varied (pelagians, semi-pelagians, non-calvinists, etc.).

    My only point was that quoting a SINGLE authority in attempt to deny my position was Calvinistic is absurd as I can find SINGLE arminian authorities to overturn any point you express.


    Not too long ago, although I did not make any return comment, you spoke in a very condescending manner to me. I simply ignored the condescending remark and provided evidence your point was wrong. I think your remark began with "no disrespect BUT" what I said was "absolute nonsense." It is difficult to know if a condenscending tone is behind much of your words but many times it appears that way many times.
     
    #96 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You asked my opinion not your opinion of your position, as a theological position. Of course you do not see your position as I see it.
     
    #97 The Biblicist, Feb 7, 2014
  18. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Which itself brings into question your initial application of this passage since we were discussion the unregenerate becoming regenerate, not the regenerate expressing his need for God's help to recover from his backslidden state.

    What do you mean by 'turn himself?' Do you mean the desire to be helped by God to be turned? Or do you mean the ability to forgive and restore himself? Because the first is clearly pre-existent given he is making the request and the second is only something God could do and would do upon THAT request.

    Faith comes by hearing, so in that since you are correct. They can't desire something unless the know of it. They can't choose to follow someone they haven't heard of as Paul clearly explains in Romans 10.
     
    #98 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  19. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    A supposition is to suppose something IS true. I asked you to suppose OUR position is true and then answer that question under that supposition. Instead you supposed your straw-man was true and replied accordingly.

    Does someone who asks for forgiveness, even if they are asking 'freely', deserve to be forgiven? In your eyes, does asking for forgiveness, in our system, merit one not only being forgiven but given eternal life in glory with God? Do you think the request itself is so valuable, so meritorious in and of itself that it earns eternal life?
     
    #99 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
  20. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    So, you'd be okay to be lumped in with anti-evangelistic hyper Calvinists or other heretical sects of your position? If not, then don't do that to me. I was referencing mainstream scholars differences on valid points within your system.

    I wasn't attempting to deny your point was 'Calvinistic.' I was attempting to debunk your accusation against me for not understanding your convoluted and ever diverse systematic soteriology.

    I'm not addressing a 'tone' but an actual accusation. You accused me of not understanding or being 'taught' something that you acted as if was clear cut and universally accepted position of your system.
     
    #100 Skandelon, Feb 7, 2014
Page 5 of 9
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...